Building and maintaining relationships is one key to healthy aging

There are some clear risk factors that lead to an earlier death such as smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity. But are there other factors that influence health and wellness later in life – behaviors that researchers have yet to study?

Until recently, one of those unknown factors was social relationships. Anecdotal evidence suggested that people with strong social relationships reduced their risk of mortality, but there was little evidence to back up the suggestion. While many medical studies included a measure of social isolation, no one had looked at the issue on a broader scale.

That is, until researchers at Brigham Young University conducted a systematic review of the literature on how social relationships impact the risk of dying later in life.  They reviewed 148 studies that included more than 300,000 participants that included information about how people died, their initial health status and pre-existing health conditions, as well as type of assessment of social relationships.

Over all the data they reviewed, they found a 50 percent increased likelihood of survival for participants with stronger social relationships. The lack of social relationships had more influence on mortality rates that other risk factors like physical activity and obesity.

The researchers noted that more complex measurements of social relationships – instead of simple indications such as marital status –  were more predictive of death.

The take-home message is that your relationships later in life are just as important as what you eat and drink, how much exercise you get, and other important health behaviors. More research is needed to determine how relationships improve well-being, and specific characteristics that contribute to the trend. In the meantime, it’s important for medical professionals to consider social relationships in their treatment plans for older adults.

New information on how food stamps help families

Nearly 45 million American received help purchasing food each last year through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called food stamps.

The large federal program – which provides annual benefits of more than $72 million – routinely comes up in political debates. Newt Gingrich, a Republican candidate in the presidential primaries, suggested the program supplementing the diets of wealthy Americans. And a budget proposal in the House of Representatives this month proposes cutting funding to the program.

But new evidence from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service shows the program helps keep families out of poverty.

The analysis found that food stamps led to a 4.4 percent decline in poverty from 2000 to 2009, despite a nationwide economic downturn. The program had a particularly strong impact on child poverty, which was reduced by 15.5 percent over that period.

In addition to analyzing poverty rates, the report also looked at the depth and severity of poverty. It found that food stamps reduced the severity of poverty by 21 percent, on average, from 2000 to 2009.

The program was especially effective in 2009, when benefits were increased by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That year, it reduced the depth of child poverty by 20.9 percent and the severity of child poverty by 27.5 percent.

“Research has shown that SNAP indirectly protects children’s health by reducing food insecurity,” said Joan Doyle Paddock, a senior extension associate at Cornell’s College of Human Ecology who helps develop and evaluate nutrition education programs for SNAP “Children receiving SNAP are significantly more likely to be considered ‘well’ than those not receiving SNAP.”

To qualify for food stamps in 2012, a family of three would have to earn less than $24,096 a year.  That’s a meager amount to support the needs of three people. It’s clear the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is making a difference to families across the nation. That’s good evidence to have on hand.

Are antipsychotic medications helpful for nursing home patients?

A systematic review published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society looked at medical records nearly 84,000 nursing home patients in 45 states to determine if taking antipsychotic medications increased the risk of other medical problems, specifically heart attack, stroke, serious bacterial infections and hip fracture.

The review found that within 180 days of starting antipsychotic medicines, nursing home patients were at higher risk for bacterial infections, heart attack and hip fracture, but not at higher risk for stroke. The study also identified which specific medications lead to increased problems, and which doses proved to be safer for residents.

On the whole, this is exactly the kind of information that medical providers need to make the best decisions for patients with complex medical issues.  The scope of this study – encompassing thousands of patients across the nation – and detail of data about specific medicines and doses provides a roadmap to help residents stay healthy.

Real evidence linking taxes and death

With U.S. income taxes due today, there will surely be banter around water coolers across the country on the subject of taxes, including a myriad of jokes about paying Uncle Sam.

“If my business gets much worse, I won’t have to lie on my next tax return.”

“When it comes to taxes, there are two types of people. There are those that get it done early, also known as psychopaths, and then the rest of us.”

“Drive carefully. Uncle Sam needs every taxpayer he can get.”

It turns out, there’s actually something to that last one.

A study in the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, reviewed data on fatal road crashes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from the past 30 years. The study found there are consistently more fatal car crashes on Tax Day each year, compared with other days. On average there are 13 more deaths – approximately a 6 percent increase – compared with other days.

What is going on?  The study authors speculate that added stress of a deadline could lead to more distracted driving, or that people could be consuming more alcohol on tax day.  Whatever the reason, they suggest a public health campaign to remind people to drive carefully on Tax Day.

Drive safely today!

More evidence: Pesticides and Parkinson’s disease

The brain is the most complex organ in the human body responsible for our movement, behavior and personality. Medical conditions that originate in the brain are some of the most difficult to understand and treat. Among these conditions in Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative disorder that includes symptoms of shaking, rigidity, difficulty walking, as well as cognitive and behavioral problems.

The review analyzed 45 different studies looked pesticide exposure and risk for disease.  It found that people exposed specifically to herbicides and insecticides were more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.

Interestingly, the review also found that it didn’t matter whether participants were exposed to pesticides at work, or outside of work – the risk for developing Parkinson’s disease was approximately the same.

At the end of the review, the authors call for more research to help identify specifically which chemicals are linked to the disease.

As I type this, I look out at my lawn that has more than its fair share of weeds growing in it. But I’m happy that we chose all-natural, corn-based fertilizer’s this year. We’re surely going to be pulling more weeds than if we used stronger herbicides, but I’m happy to avoid anything that could impact my family’s health in the future.

New evidence on running shoes

If you frequent a trail or neighborhood that is popular with runners, you’ve most likely noticed a new trend: people running barefoot or with very odd-looking shoes that place for each toe. And if you’re a runner yourself, you’ve certainly come across – maybe even experimented with – the trend of barefoot running.

Books like ChiRunning and Born to Run make the case for lower-profile, less-cushioned shoes or none at all. Here at EBL, we’ve written about the phenomenon before – specifically the work of Harvard biologist Daniel Lieberman, who studies the biomechanics of barefoot running and how early humans survived by evolving the ability to travel long distances to hunt.

Now a new study – detailed by a New York Times blog – has found that wearing light-weight shoes, instead of going completely barefoot, is metabolically more efficient.

The researchers’ argument goes something like this:  Running with traditional running shoes, which weight 300 to 400 grams, increase the amount of energy required to run because with every step, the running is lifting those weights.  Over the miles, that extra energy adds up.

For this study, researchers compared runners in lightweight shoes – weighing 150 grams – to barefoot runners who ran with leaded strips weighing 150 grams taped to the top of their feet. Carrying the same weight, the study found that barefoot running was actually less efficient compared to wearing light-weight shoes.

“What we found was that there seem to be adaptations that occur during the running stride that can make wearing shoes metabolically less costly,” Jason R. Franz, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado who led the study, told the New York Times. Shoes, he says, “provide some degree of cushioning.” If you eschew shoes, “something else has to provide the cushioning.”

Without any shoes, a runner’s leg muscles require additional energy to provide this cushioning.

In fact, the study even found that unweighted barefoot running was slightly less efficient than running with light-weight shoes, even though the shoes added weight.

The study didn’t address other benefits that barefoot runners tout – namely a reduction in injuries from running without shoes. But the study does make the case for investing in a different kind of running shoe – not the cushioned, bulky trainer that was once popular, but a more protective, lighter shoe that protects feet without adding weight.

BPA: The answer is in the details

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided not to ban the chemical bisphenol A, also known as BPA, in food packaging last week. The decision may seem like a surprising one since so many water bottles and serving utensils are sold as “BPA-free.” So let’s look at the evidence behind their decision.

National Public Radio offered a good overview of the evidence available on the health effect of BPA. The story noted that evidence from government agencies typically weighs heavier in FDA decisions.

One worry with other studies in contamination – BPA accidentally getting into the blood after samples are drawn. Some studies have found high levels of BPA in the blood. But these studies used samples collected in hospitals or doctors’ offices, not research settings and did not include a common test to detect contamination.

One study performed by government scientists involved feeding 20 adults a diet high in BPA from packaged foods for a day, and then measuring how much of it ended up in their blood.  At the end of the day, there wasn’t enough BPA in participants’ blood to measure.

That’s because the human body can he human body can actually inactivate dangerous chemicals like BPA in the intestine and liver, Justin Teeguarden, a toxicologist at the Pacific Northwest National Lab who conducted the study, told NPR.  Contamination was also an issue in this study, but the researchers tested for it and overcame it, he said.

Other government studies found that very little BPA is transferred to a nursing mother’s breast milk, and that  newborn monkeys are able to inactivate BPA just like human adults. (Researchers aren’t able to conduct studies on newborn babies.)

While the evidence does not show that BPA is completely safe, the FDA found that the low levels of BPA that humans are safe.

As for me, I’m still going to avoid BPA when I can. With the pressure on companies to remove from their products, there are plenty of BPA-free alternatives available, especially for kids. Any other BPA from canned food or juice containers, I’m not going to worry about for the moment.

Skip to toolbar